So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

Is it possible to be a moderate on development? As in, I acknowledge that urban density is better than sprawl, and I always preferred the way cities and towns are laid out in Europe - more dense cities with public transit, and then countryside, rather than continuous “stroads” and sprawl. At the same time, I don’t agree that upzoning every single family home immediately is the way to go. It’s not that I don’t like the idea to make room for more mixed income homes in upscale single family neighborhoods, it’s that I think it takes more careful planning and we need to make sure we have all the infrastructure in place or else it’s a mess for everyone, new residents and old. I also think that if you profit off of development, then you should pay the taxes necessary to pay for the services new residents will need.

Does it make me a NIMBY if I don’t think we have to have constant construction, all the time? I mean on one hand if the population grows then we need to house it. On the other hand… I once had a discussion with a YIMBY that said that there should literally ALWAYS be construction in every neighborhood. When one building is finished, then it’s time to tear down another and build it bigger. Is it wrong to want occasional breaks from cranes, jackhammers, and loud noise? Not saying never, just saying…. sometimes, maybe? Be finished with the construction?

Am I a NIMBY? I think of myself as a moderate on development. Is anyone with me? Yes I voted for Elrich.

[Anonymous]

Basically there is a group of people who call themselves YIMBYs and if you disagree with them on anything you are a NIMBY. That’s how it works now. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

[Anonymous]

OP, we have a housing crisis and a climate crisis.

We either deal with both of them asap, or we don't.

Being moderate because you prefer three stories to 7 is playing the fiddle while Rome is burning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is upzoning every SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Both PPs are right. YIMBYism started as a libertarian movement to deregulate development and lower taxes for billionaires. It then co-opted a lot of otherwise well meaning people by promising that deregulation and lowering taxes on billionaires would lower housing prices and increase equity. The main problem with YIMBYism is that it will never deliver on these promises, so people will move on. Another problem is that it is an illiberal movement incapable of building the broad consensus necessary to do hard but worthwhile things like increasing density near train stations and jobs. Anyone who’s not for the lower taxes on billionaires AND paving farms, parks, and cemeteries is a NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

I would say that the YIMBY's in DC are having success with getting the zoning rules adjusted and chipping away at the monolithic historic preservation regime.

Other cities that have eliminated single family zoning and loosened rules around multi-family units in formerly single family areas can also claim success.

[Anonymous]

In MoCo it is.

[Anonymous]

The loudest YIMBYs are the GGWash folks. And many of them seem to be failed urban planners, failed architects, and other kinds of young urban professionals who seem to think if they scream "NIMBY" at everyone enough we will build hundreds of thousands of new units to flood the supply side and they will then have the high rise penthouse of their dreams for only $900 a month rent. Which of course won't actually happen. Never mind dealing with the infrastructure and everything else needed to deal with such a massive influx of people if it were to actually happen. But meanwhile they will continue to be annoying anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The loudest YIMBYs are the GGWash folks. And many of them seem to be failed urban planners, failed architects, and other kinds of young urban professionals who seem to think if they scream "NIMBY" at everyone enough we will build hundreds of thousands of new units to flood the supply side and they will then have the high rise penthouse of their dreams for only $900 a month rent. Which of course won't actually happen. Never mind dealing with the infrastructure and everything else needed to deal with such a massive influx of people if it were to actually happen. But meanwhile they will continue to be annoying anyhow.

… and nevermind that a lot of them have a personal financial interest in said development as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Affording to YIMBYs everything is zoning. As a result, the only thing you could believe in looking at that chart is that there was a rush of zoning changes across the US in 2006 which prevented the construction of new housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Is your belief that housing production plunged in 2006 and has not since recovered 16 years later because the whole country got taken over by NIMBYs and passed a bunch of restrictive zoning laws?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.